Do you believe in free will?

[tackattack]

---

1- Perception is just the product of perceiving. That typically comes from sensory input, but if our agent has a means to perceive rather than just cogitate than we can recognize or understand why we are and who we are. We can intuit or reason then why we are deciding. That gives us conscious choice. If the agent can exist without material means than it is independent of the material and that would seperate from physical reality correct?

The "if" being what precludes the possibility. Both the actions of perception and cogitation require material reality to occur. So, your argument prior to the if tells you why that "if" is not true.

3- So what you're saying here is he still can't change who he is, even though he knows who he now perceives himself to be is not truly himself?

You are not making much sense here. He truly is as he perceives himself. Whether he wants to remain so or not and the actionable change resulting from the motivation is irrelevant.

J2-why can't it be both?

Because both would entail a necessary contradiction

Can we not think back to things that were with memory? It's not the reality now, but it's sequential and out of temporal current reality.

No, the memory itself is a part of current temporal reality. The content of the memory is a reference to reality - not reality.

We don't always necessarily feel the way we felt as the observer back then, despite potential ghost sensory inputs giving us a projection. I believe thoughts are categorical not analogical. Let me ask you this: Can you perceive something in any way other than the way you typically expect to perceive it?

My expectation is to perceive it as it is - so no, I cannot perceive it any other way. That says nothing about the projection.

J3- How is there a primacy issue when I state reality can be comprised of phenomena that seem more real than noumena only because of their tangibility. I'm not saying either have the ability to divorce themselves completely from the causal chain, but in fact change its course. This perception of noumena and phenomena with introspection and reasoning , filtered through identity, are what encompasses free- will to me.

That is where you are wrong. I asked you for the justification of noumena. You have no faculty to perceive it.

4- If you can't be anything other than who you are (law of identity) can you be more than more than one you?

No.

I'm fairly certain that there are some multiple personalities I'd like to introduce to you. If each has their own identity and are unaware of the others the whole would be schizophrenic but the parts break the law of identity.

Don't confuse personality with identity. Multiple personalities all would be subsets of the same identity,

---

I do have a question for you genkaus. If will is completely under coersion at all times, and the agent is part of the coersion, wouldn't he be affecting the direction of the will? Wouldn't that indicate that will, while influenced by multiple known and unknown influences, if incluenced by the desires of the agent would be under a degree of partial control of the agent?

I think your question is better directed at NoMoreFaith. It is not my position that an agent's will is under coercion all the time and it is my position that the agent being a part of the cause precludes coercion.

---

1. Both the actions of perception and cogitation do not require material reality to occur. Unless you believe we only have 5 material senses? Thoughts, desires or mathematics are not a material reality. All factor in to many of my daily cogitations.

3a. Then please allow me to clarify. In the example person A knows objectively and reliably that they’re not acting “like themselves” (A prior). The person desires to return to A prior. Your statements indicate that there is no way for person A to move in the direction of and attain the same perspective once held by person A prior correct?
3b. In the instance I described he would have two images of self, the current and the desired. His desires result in an actionable change and is relevant. The fact that he at one time was person A (even though it was an introduced corruption of his identity) but would hold no sway over future desires or decision by the new person. It would quintessentially be a memory of the self he didn’t want.
J2. You never answered “Can you perceive something in any way other than the way you typically expect to perceive it?” Also, just because something happened sometime that wasn’t in the now of the current timeline, doesn’t divorce it from affecting the causal chain. This is because the perception or cognition of something that has happened or could happen can factor into the though process. Projections, prediction, memories and conditioning even if 100% accurate and observed will still affect the physical though the causal chain.
4. I agree that the physical housing of memory itself is a part of current temporal reality. However the contents of that temporal reality (declarative memories) housed in physical reality (brain) when episodic are in essence illusory time travel sessions. It causes tinting of the now by what was. That to me signifies non-temporal, but we could very well be arguing semantics on this and I don’t realize it.
5. Ok so say for instance a particular fish has developed the ability to sense the electrical field produced by certain other fish through evolution. We don’t have that sense and can’t sense a fishes electrical field. It is a noumena to us. The lack of our perception of a noumena, does not negate the phenomena from occurring, just our realization of its occurrence.

My statement does need a little rephrasing as it was inaccurate so allow me to re attempt.
This perception of phenomena, effect of noumena, desire, introspection and reasoning, all filtered through identity, and acted upon are what encompass free- will to me.

6- Objectively we would see one identity, that of a schizo. However, from each of the different personalities perspectives, they would each have their own identity correct? The question was to anyone then I guess, could you extrapolate what you mean by “the agent being a part of the cause precludes coercion”

Thanks for all your attention on this subject and your patience with me, I thouroughly enjoy these discussions.